S03.E08: To The Gates!

[RiddleyWalker]

Could the dead who conquer Paris be Athelstan?  Floki failed...could Athelstan be the bridge between the Vikings (Ragnar knows the lord's prayer, Rollo was baptised) and the French?  

 

 

 

I'll bet you're right and Athelstan is a major part of that prophecy. Also, in the preview for next week there's a quick scene of Athelstan's face in a sort of vision-like manner. Will the plan come to Ragnar from Athelstan during a vision or hallucination related to his injuries?

[Lugal]

I am not doubting you, but I am just trying to get clarification, particularly since it seems as if the French and English at that time seemed to come from the same sets of peoples, though from different subsets. The Gauls were Celts, right? And the Franks were a Germanic tribe like the Saxons. And the Romans had control over both Gaul and the British Islands for a time. 

To clarify:  The Gauls were Celts, as were the early Britons, speaking Celtic languages.  The Romans conquered both, and due to similarities between Latin and Gaulish, Latin quickly replaced Gaulish (although pockets of Gaulish may have survived until 500AD).  For reasons unknown, Latin never managed to replace British, and when the Romans left, people went back to speaking Celtic in Britain, while the Latin in Gaul evolved into Old French.

 

The Franks and Saxons (and Angles) were all West Germanic peoples (as opposed to the North Germanic Norse).  The difference was Frankish never overcame the Latin of Gaul, but did introduce a flood of Germanic loanwords into French.  The Saxons did manage to push the Celts west back into Wales and Cornwall (some even fled altogether into Brittany) and north into Strathclyde where they retained their languages for some time (only Welsh and Breton survive to this day)

 

While North and West Germanic had been separated for a few centuries, it would have been easier for them to understand each other than to understand Old French (the Italic and Germanic Branches split from Indo-European several thousand years before)

[Bongo Fury]

If nothing else, the History Channel must be happy with all the history discussions the series has spurred here and elsewhere.

[Ohwell]

Yeah,  I don't completely understand some of the things I've read, but it's been interesting. : )

[slf]

Unless, she actually has a soft spot for Kalf, the sex for pleasure but eventually kill for revenge thing seems like a male fantasy thing to me. I just don't know of any woman who could be aroused but totally despise someone and want them dead. I may well be wrong, though. Female sexuality is quite a bit more complicated than that of the average male and I--alas--am no expert.

 

Very much male fantasy. Hate!sex is a (not actually all that common) thing, of course, but it's usually with your douchey coworker who's hot- not the guy who spurned you and then used your trust to usurp your political power. There's this long-standing male fantasy (in everything from Pocahontas to A Song of Ice and Fire) that you can do anything- destroy her country, kill her brothers and father, starve and degrade her people, destroy her culture. But she'll still want the D. YOUR D, specifically.

[Captanne]

David Gerrold ("The Trouble with Tribbles" from Star Trek:  TOS) wrote an absolutely hilarious version of this trope back in the 70s.  The "I've never been laid so well in my life -- here, have my world and my culture!"  I'll try to find it and post it somewhere.  (He wrote two? books about writing for Star Trek long before it became the juggernaut it is.)

[RiddleyWalker]

David Gerrold ("The Trouble with Tribbles" from Star Trek:  TOS) wrote an absolutely hilarious version of this trope back in the 70s.  The "I've never been laid so well in my life -- here, have my world and my culture!"  I'll try to find it and post it somewhere.  (He wrote two? books about writing for Star Trek long before it became the juggernaut it is.)

I'd love to read that if you can find it!

[RiddleyWalker]

Very much male fantasy. Hate!sex is a (not actually all that common) thing, of course, but it's usually with your douchey coworker who's hot- not the guy who spurned you and then used your trust to usurp your political power. There's this long-standing male fantasy (in everything from Pocahontas to A Song of Ice and Fire) that you can do anything- destroy her country, kill her brothers and father, starve and degrade her people, destroy her culture. But she'll still want the D. YOUR D, specifically.

 

Thanks, @slf!

 

This bit with Lagertha and Kalf is a bit jarring and disappointing, to me, to be honest. Nothing to do with conventional morality but everything to do with Hirst  presenting characters as actual humans in all their confusing variety and not merely pandering. Could I see Queen Krazypants doing this? Absolutely! But Lagertha doesn't seem to have a damaged sexuality from past abuses etc so it seems out of character for her unless there's more than meets the eye so far in the Lagertha/Kalf relationship. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[SingleMaltBlonde]

I think the Lagetha/Kalf hookup was a little more than just hate sex.  Let's remember she wanted him before he betrayed her.  

 

They are way more equals.

 

Regardless of her position she has fewer options than a comparable man.

Edited April 12, 2015 by SingleMaltBlonde

[RiddleyWalker]

I think the Lagetha/Kalf hookup was a little more than just hate sex.  Let's remember she wanted him before he betrayed her.  

 

They are way more equals.

 

Regardless of her position she has fewer options than a comparable man.

I do hope there's more to it and I hope Hirst makes that clear. The fact that they are equals makes the hookup less believable than if they weren't if she truly hates him. She does have fewer options than a man, but in a situation where she had even less power (i.e. when she was  married to that earl) she had no qualms about stabbing him in the eye.

[RiddleyWalker]

Double post. Again...

Edited April 12, 2015 by RiddleyWalker

[Mick Lady]

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but are the fox head dude, and Rollo, and the other Vikings who go into battle bare chested, known as the Berserkers? Most of the Vikings go into battle with some sort of armor and/or a shield, but Rollo is always a minimalist, with just his big axe. And these 'berserkers' always seem to be the most aggressive fighters, I seem to remember some battle scenes with them jumping over/out of the shield wall to attack. Am I confusing this with fantasy literature I've read, or are these Vikings indeed being portrayed as berserkers?

 

Edit:

I did my own research and they are indeed Berserkers. The fox head is actually a wolf head. They also wore bear head and or pelts. This is a direct reference to Odin. And they did indeed eschew armor in combat. They were also fond of using hallucinogenic mushrooms before going into battle. So it seems our beloved Rollo is a Berserker.

Beat me to it! And yes it was a wolfs head. My husband is a Norseman and dedicated to the lore. (His Fantasy Football team is the "Daneland Berserkers" 11 times to the Super Bowl, seven wins. Had to say that, 'cause he's, you know, a guy...)

 

The Berserkers often went into battle heavily drugged, and wore no armor.

What amazes me, is how much of this lore I know, just listing to Mick's stories. He even looks like a Viking, 6'1'. 200 pounds, long blond hair and a beard. He takes this all very seriously.

 

edited because I still can't spell!

Edited April 13, 2015 by Mick Lady

[bandella]

I learned that simply put, modern English evolved after the Conquest from the Norman/French aristocracy having to communicate with the Saxon/Germanish peasants.  Two very different languages melded together.  That's why modern English is roughly half Latin and half German.

Exactly. French was the official language of the court following the Norman conquest, and as French itself borrows heavily from Latin for its official documentation, that's why a good portion of our legal terms are Latin in nature. Nobles had to learn it due to intermarriage, business, and simply wanting to move up the social ladder. It never really caught on with the lower classes, but the well-to-do definitely embraced some elements of French to make themselves seem more erudite. Of course, this often resulted in pidgin French and English amalgamations. 

 

I don't think modern English is really half-anything, though, to be fair. I don't remember who said it (when in doubt, attribute everything either to Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde), but "English is the language that beats up other languages in a dark alley, goes through their pockets, and steals whatever it can find." It's probably a third German, a third Latin, a quarter French, and a quarter Greek. 

 

So they were yelling "Oh! We are annoyed and surprised!" over and over?

I am not doubting you, but I am just trying to get clarification, particularly since it seems as if the French and English at that time seemed to come from the same sets of peoples, though from different subsets. The Gauls were Celts, right? And the Franks were a Germanic tribe like the Saxons. And the Romans had control over both Gaul and the British Islands for a time. 

I am not at all up on my Celtic history, sadly, so it's entirely possible I'm talking nonsense here, and I apologize if that's the case and welcome corrections. From what little I do know, though, I think the Celts originated in and around Austria and eventually migrated west to become the Celts of the Iberian Peninsula, France, and the British Isles, but the process of intermingling between Celts and indigenous peoples in these areas had been going on for many, many centuries by the 9th century, roughly when this show takes place. By that point, the French language had taken on heavy Latin influences. So maybe if the vikings had shown up several hundred years earlier, there wouldn't have been such a difficult language barrier. 

Back on track, here, I said it in the last episode's thread, and I'll say it again here: I'm torn between "the dead will conquer Paris" meaning either that Ragnar's gonna end up flinging a bunch of dead bodies over the castle walls and waging biological warfare against the Franks, or more abstractly, Athelstan's faith and Ragnar's familiarity with it will come into play. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter, simply because I think that's a more interesting path to take. 

Still, though, I'm puzzled over what Ragnar said after Athelstan's "funeral," when he put on the cross and asked that Athelstan forgive him not for what he had done, but for what he was about to do. Did he mean solely the raid on Paris, with which Athelstan had clearly been enamored? Given that Athelstan was feeding him information about Paris's defenses and layout knowing full well that Ragnar was planning a raid, I don't think he was that concerned about the city being attacked. And given that Ragnar's a man of few words and never seems to speak without a purpose, I refuse to think that was just a throwaway line. Instead, I'm thinking he means to use Christianity to get his foot in the door, so to speak, and lay the seeds of ruin from within that way. 

[justjoan]

 

The result is that we tend to forget that the Saxons and the Franks never ever harmed a hair on the head of a single Viking until their lands were invaded by same.  They were the innocent parties that were raped, pillaged and murdered because the Norse religious culture and the harsh area of survival they lived in in the far north made them honor war and warriors more than anything else and the cause didn't matter.

 

While we're remembering this, are we also remembering that the Saxons are originally from the German mainland and not England, and that by this time the Franks had amassed quite an empire of their own? These are all conqueror peoples; there are no clean hands here. It's unfortunate for the Saxons and Franks that it's their turn at the end of the sword, and it was unfortunate for the Britons, continental Saxons (our Saxons' cousins! Charlemagne killed the hell out of them),  Lombards, Slavs and Avars, etc. before them. But if you're looking to side with an "innocent" cultural group, this show is going to be disappointing for you. All historical fiction will.

[green]

While we're remembering this, are we also remembering that the Saxons are originally from the German mainland and not England, and that by this time the Franks had amassed quite an empire of their own? These are all conqueror peoples; there are no clean hands here. It's unfortunate for the Saxons and Franks that it's their turn at the end of the sword, and it was unfortunate for the Britons, continental Saxons (our Saxons' cousins! Charlemagne killed the hell out of them),  Lombards, Slavs and Avars, etc. before them. But if you're looking to side with an "innocent" cultural group, this show is going to be disappointing for you. All historical fiction will.

 

I agree no group is without blood on their hands.  But it was not that generation of Saxons that hacked the Celts into oblivion anymore than it is the current generation of Germans who built concentration camps.  I don't believe the sins of the father are passed to the son personally.  And an individual who has done none harm should not be killed by someone who comes in invading his land for no just reason.  

 

And I could care less about group guilt as well.  Individuals live history.  And if an individual is an innocent farmer and has no blood on their hands regards individuals in another group they shouldn't be killed by them.  That is all I meant.  Kind of like since the British and French signed the Sykes-Picot agreement that made a mess of the Middle East after WWI does that excuse a group of terrorists in another generation from blowing up a train in Madrid?  Group wise why attack the Spanish people even?  The Spanish did their bit at slaughtering peoples in the Americas back in the day but that hardly justifies some individuals being blow up in a train by an entirely different group of people several generations later.  Even if that group were disgruntled Incas which they weren't.

 

So even if you do go by group guilt then still neither the Saxons nor the Franks ever attacked nor invaded the lands of the Norsemen.  It's kind of a universal premise that a group attacked out of the clear blue when they never harmed that other group are the "innocent" in these cases and have the right to self-defense.

 

Neither historical fiction nor history disappoints me that way if you mean I will be surprised as to what happened or did happen.  I know what happened ... and what will happen.  If you mean disappoints me as in history repeats over and over again in insane, bloody slaughters for no good reason.  Damn straight it disappoints me.  Always will.  And the Vikings do a lot of that "disappointing" during this particular era.

 

Again this series is weird in that we can find ourselves at times rooting for the terrorists instead of those being terrorized.  That is because these terrorists have become people to us and not a nameless faceless mob.  But that still doesn't make their actions less wrong.  That is where the real history and this drama keep colliding and producing all these strange complicated feelings as we view it as both fiction (with great actors playing interesting and colorful characters) and history at the same time.  I think that if say this was the fantasy genre instead things wouldn't get so complicated.

 

So the result in this episode is "poor people of Paris don't deserve this horror and bloodshed" one moment and the next is "don't kill Lagertha, damn it!" the next.  You can go schizoid watching this show, heh.

Edited April 13, 2015 by green

[Granny58]

"Is it just me, or does anyone else want to see the French princess get some subtitles going? When she was screaming while hoisting the banner, I could barely understand anything she said."   I watch this entire show (and Forever) with closed captioning on.  Otherwise it would be gibberish for me. 

[Mick Lady]

Count me in Granny58! Subtitles all the way!

 

May I please pat myself on the back with calling the plague? I so rarely get to do so, and from the looks of all the Paris dead this is just what's going to happen!

 

If I'm wrong, I'll just go back in my corner (with the Seer) and bow to the rest of you.

 

As an aside, this place should carry a warning. Something along the line of "Addicting! And filled with the cleverest and most likeable people on the internet!" No shit people, you all rock! I can't tell you how many times I've woken up Mick laughing!

[Stratego]

Count me in Granny58! Subtitles all the way!

 

May I please pat myself on the back with calling the plague? I so rarely get to do so, and from the looks of all the Paris dead this is just what's going to happen!

 

If I'm wrong, I'll just go back in my corner (with the Seer) and bow to the rest of you.

 

As an aside, this place should carry a warning. Something along the line of "Addicting! And filled with the cleverest and most likeable people on the internet!" No shit people, you all rock! I can't tell you how many times I've woken up Mick laughing!

A search engine would have provided all of the history of what happened.

[jnymph]

"Is it just me, or does anyone else want to see the French princess get some subtitles going? When she was screaming while hoisting the banner, I could barely understand anything she said."   I watch this entire show (and Forever) with closed captioning on.  Otherwise it would be gibberish for me. 

I had to turn on my CC specifically for this scene.    I usually don't like the CC though, for me it kind of detracts from the feel of it. ( I end up rewinding a lot though.)

[Mick Lady]

A search engine would have provided all of the history of what happened.

 

Oh I know, Stratego, but this darn show plays so fast and loose with historical fact, it's not even close. Drives me NUTS! Fun to speculate though!